FloydA:rkiller1: eraser8: Is there a reason our society treats religious ideas so much more gingerly than other kinds of ideas?This isn't a troll. I'm seriously asking.

Not really. It's a cause de jure, as are LGBT rights, abortion, gun control, racism and Washington politics. Wait a few weeks and other de jure issue will cycle through MSNBC. Wait a few years and we'll be right back here. You know, circle of life and all./Whatever sells, sells.

Note: "De Jure" is a Latin term that means "concerning the law." "Du Jour" is a French phrase means "of the day" or "made for a particular time."

eraser8:Is there a reason our society treats religious ideas so much more gingerly than other kinds of ideas?

This isn't a troll. I'm seriously asking.

It's not just religious ideas and only religious ideas that are treated more gingerly than other kinds of ideas. Like I mentioned above, you could have done this same exercise with the American flag and had a similar outcome with some individuals. Heck, for someone you could have done this exercise with a dollar because for some, that is their God.

I am sure there is something you would not stomp on for whatever reason that someone else would think it's foolish. So, I ask you what is it and why would you not stomp on it?

Igor Jakovsky:Mrtraveler01: Happy Hours: I read an article from CBS and the Palm Beach Post. Those aren't exactly Al Jazeera, the BBC or even the PBS News Hour, but I do consider them to be news outlets more respectable than Townhall or WND.

I'm not too sure about the CBS affiliate in West Palm, they got bought out by Sinclair who has been known for having a pro-Republican bias in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group#Controversies

You should stick to the palm beach post if you want liberal bias then.

Did you see those controversies? A lot of that was unnecessary BS on Sinclair's part. And now West Palm is subjected to it.

Are there examples of the Palm Beach Post being that liberally biased?

skullkrusher:bugontherug: Weaver95: SkinnyHead: The exercise is pointless for those students who have no reverence for Jesus. Those students should be forced to say a prayer to Jesus instead. Then they could benefit from the exercise too.

oddly enough, I'm ok with that. it would be in line with the lesson the professor was trying to teach.

Except that nobody was required to step on the paper. And TrollHead's premise is false anyway. The exercise is certainly instructive even for students with no reverence for Jesus. Let's assume one fact, and infer another:

1) Let's assume there was at least one student present with no reverence for Jesus. I would say infer this, but the article doesn't mention how many students were present. But it's reasonable to assume that in any normal sized class at a secular university there's at least one non-Christian.

2) Let's infer from the article's failure to report whether anyone actually did step on the paper that no one did. It is a strong inference given that the article's sole purpose is to generate outrage. Had any students stepped on the paper, the article would have emphasized that point to make people madder.

Given those two facts, it is certainly instructive to that student that s/he chose not to step on the paper. It is likewise instructive for other students who do revere Jesus to learn why those who don't revere Jesus chose not to step on it.

the lesson was ill-advised. Could have achieved the same lesson with having each student write his or her mother's name and discuss why they were hesitant to stomp on a paper with words on it to explore the importance of symbols.

You love this lesson precisely because it was ill-advised and bothered someone whose offense you take pleasure in.Fortunately, such an attitude isn't necessary to make the same point.

I rarely agree with you but this I agree with 100%. This was a really pointless and offensive exercise.

skullkrusher:the lesson was ill-advised. Could have achieved the same lesson with having each student write his or her mother's name and discuss why they were hesitant to stomp on a paper with words on it to explore the importance of symbols.

I disagree - his mother isn't a cultural icon. this class was about the importance of symbols in a given culture.

Russ1642:The exercise seems fine to me. Stomp or don't stomp it's just a prop to get the discussion going. Now the university contradicts the student's claim that he was suspended. I'm thinking that Jesus boy was lying about that one. Universities don't suspend students for piddly little things like not participating or making a valid complaint.

From the link Happy Hour posted, it seems like the student told the professor he was going to the supervisor and the media and telling them that his (the students) religious freedom was being violated. This is pretty much a veiled threat, anyway (you don't go to the media over something like this unless you're trying to blow it out of proportion). And I'm guessing the kid wasn't exactly being polite at that point, either. The professor feels threatened, tells the kid to leave, kid complains, FAU finds that he threatened a professor and tells him to leave the class and the professor alone until further investigation. Thus, "suspension" from that class.

This exercise just goes to show that not only are religious people completely irrational about their beliefs but when it's pointed out to them they get all "I'm being persecuted" and shiat. When you can no longer even talk about your beliefs, why you do or do not think and act a certain way, then the brainwashing of the church was successful.

Somacandra:eraser8: Is there a reason our society treats religious ideas so much more gingerly than other kinds of ideas?

Complex historical reasons. A lot of it is tied up into what gets to count in a historically Protestant public square as "legitimate religion" in legal terms and what gets counted instead as "Popery" (Catholicism), "Paganism"(Amerindian traditions), or "Cults" (Mormons). There is a vast literature on it. Good case in point would be the Mormon tradition.

I think it also has to do with the centrality of religious ideas or lack thereof to personal identity.

ginandbacon:skullkrusher: bugontherug: Weaver95: SkinnyHead: The exercise is pointless for those students who have no reverence for Jesus. Those students should be forced to say a prayer to Jesus instead. Then they could benefit from the exercise too.

oddly enough, I'm ok with that. it would be in line with the lesson the professor was trying to teach.

Except that nobody was required to step on the paper. And TrollHead's premise is false anyway. The exercise is certainly instructive even for students with no reverence for Jesus. Let's assume one fact, and infer another:

1) Let's assume there was at least one student present with no reverence for Jesus. I would say infer this, but the article doesn't mention how many students were present. But it's reasonable to assume that in any normal sized class at a secular university there's at least one non-Christian.

2) Let's infer from the article's failure to report whether anyone actually did step on the paper that no one did. It is a strong inference given that the article's sole purpose is to generate outrage. Had any students stepped on the paper, the article would have emphasized that point to make people madder.

Given those two facts, it is certainly instructive to that student that s/he chose not to step on the paper. It is likewise instructive for other students who do revere Jesus to learn why those who don't revere Jesus chose not to step on it.

the lesson was ill-advised. Could have achieved the same lesson with having each student write his or her mother's name and discuss why they were hesitant to stomp on a paper with words on it to explore the importance of symbols.

You love this lesson precisely because it was ill-advised and bothered someone whose offense you take pleasure in.Fortunately, such an attitude isn't necessary to make the same point.

I rarely agree with you but this I agree with 100%. This was a really pointless and offensive exercise.

Pretty much this. Good lord, the first two years of college are filled with so many pointless classes and awful professors. People spouting off nonsense, whether it was professors like this or the Econ guy teaching us the merits of the Laffer Curve. You just have to shut up and take it. I've got three graduate degrees and my hardest degree was my AA. It's an exercise in the exact sort of mindless obedience this exercise was intended to ridicule..

It's called a lesson in empathy. Be told to do something that violates your values.

Now you understand what it's like when you are told to violate others.

It is a university. That means your religious values are to be put on a shelf when you enter the classroom so you can learn things that go beyond what you feel comfortable with. Classes are meant to push you beyond your comfort zone. If that doesn't happen, you do not grow. This isn't elementary school where you are coddled and parents make sure everyone "feels good." If you hold strong religious convictions, social sciences are often going to be a hostile environment because most religious beliefs are built around "What I believe is utter truth and what you believe is hogwash" even though more progressive groups don't get in your face about it. Social sciences are about removing that part from yourself, which the highly religious simply find offensive.

Anyone who describes themselves as "devout" anything should try to avoid most social sciences classes.

FloydA:Happy Hours: The university did not explain why students were only instructed to write the name of Jesus - and not the name of Mohammed or another religious figure.

Oh, that's easy. They would be the target of terrorist attacks and called "racist" if they had told the students to write Mohammed.

Also, "Mohammed" is harder to spell than Jesus and most of the student would probably have been unable to do so.

Muslim students would hesitate before stepping on the name of Jesus, because they consider him one of the great prophets. Many American Christian students would not hesitate to step on the name of Mohammed, so they would not have learned the lesson that the exercise was intended to teach.

The point is no ONE religious figure should have been singled out. Should have been told to write the name of "whatever figure is important to your faith." Otherwise the "experiment" is worthless. Only teaches anything to people to whom Jesus has meaning.

ginandbacon:I think I could see how being asked to write the name of your divine spirit on a piece of paper and then being required to step on it might be offensive. I'm not sure who designed this particular exercise, but it kind of sucks ass. There are much better ways IMHO to teach how hypocritical and ridiculous many religious teachings are without doing dishonor to the essential message behind them which is essentially love and tolerance. Jesus was a great man in many respects and even as an atheist, I'm not sure I would want to write out his name and then stomp on it.

It might have been more interesting if the professor gave a presentation about a made-up* religion and asked everyone to write the name of the made-up prophet on the paper, then step on it.

* 'made up' as in the professor made it up for the lesson, not an existing religion someone could argue was made up.

FloydA:"Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can't step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."

Sounds like the students were not "forced" to step on the paper at all. The point of the exercise was to get the students to think about why they didn't want to step on the paper. Sounds like a potentially interesting exercise, but conducted in a ham-handed way.

So, they were not "forced"? Which is interesting really... It almost reminds me of an issue called "prayer in school". Where no one was required to pray, but a group of individuals got so butt hurt they decided that it was *too much* for others to be allowed that freedom, and they should silence themselves when praying to a God they didn't believe in.

I wonder what group that was?

I wonder how up in arms you'd be if the requirement was to write "atheist" and stomp on that paper?

ginandbacon had it right. Whether or not you agree with someone's religious beliefs (or lack there of), you should respect them (as long as they aren't directly harming anyone).

As a Baptist, I'd say the atheists who don't get this, and rant and rave over prayer in school and talk about the "man on a stick" and who on a daily basis mock Christians are equivalent to the Westboro Baptist Church morons.

Atheists like that make reasonable people like ginandbacon look bad. There are smart, thoughtful and intelligent atheists which while I disagree with, I can respect and hold a reasonable argument with. The majority in this thread are in my mind equivalent to the Westboro Baptist Church idiots.

Weaver95:skullkrusher: the lesson was ill-advised. Could have achieved the same lesson with having each student write his or her mother's name and discuss why they were hesitant to stomp on a paper with words on it to explore the importance of symbols.

I disagree - his mother isn't a cultural icon. this class was about the importance of symbols in a given culture.

unless you're reading a different article, the "cultural icon" bit isn't anywhere to be seen.The importance of symbols. A name is a symbol. That's why they used one people would be hesitant to step on.

The point is no ONE religious figure should have been singled out. Should have been told to write the name of "whatever figure is important to your faith." Otherwise the "experiment" is worthless. Only teaches anything to people to whom Jesus has meaning.

Are you assuming that all of the atheists in the class would step on the paper? Because that's not an assumption I'm willing to make. I would hesitate (and I'm about as athy as they get), not because I believe in Jesus, but because I "believe in" politeness, and I would not want to offend my classmates. Therefore, the symbol has meaning to me even though I am not a member of that, or any other, religion.

I suspect that you may not have understood what the exercise was intended to teach.

Weaver95:one of the things that struck me about Limbaugh's ranting on this story was how desperate he seemed to make it into a big deal. Its like he NEEDED this to be a massive conspiracy and/or assault on the whole of Christianity.

This is when you need to remember that Rush works in the entertainment industry, and to some there is nothing more entertaining than getting whipped up about something which really has nothing to do with them. I used to listen to Limbaugh, and towards the end of that time, I started to realize that he was being sensational for effect to the point of almost bordering on sarcasm, and the callers would take the bait hook, line, and sinker.

Weaver95:skullkrusher: the lesson was ill-advised. Could have achieved the same lesson with having each student write his or her mother's name and discuss why they were hesitant to stomp on a paper with words on it to explore the importance of symbols.

I disagree - his mother isn't a cultural icon. this class was about the importance of symbols in a given culture.

I think this would also suffice as an answer to the question of why the professor used 'Jesus' and not 'Mohammed' or 'Buddha'.

hawcian:Russ1642: The exercise seems fine to me. Stomp or don't stomp it's just a prop to get the discussion going. Now the university contradicts the student's claim that he was suspended. I'm thinking that Jesus boy was lying about that one. Universities don't suspend students for piddly little things like not participating or making a valid complaint.

From the link Happy Hour posted, it seems like the student told the professor he was going to the supervisor and the media and telling them that his (the students) religious freedom was being violated. This is pretty much a veiled threat, anyway (you don't go to the media over something like this unless you're trying to blow it out of proportion). And I'm guessing the kid wasn't exactly being polite at that point, either. The professor feels threatened, tells the kid to leave, kid complains, FAU finds that he threatened a professor and tells him to leave the class and the professor alone until further investigation. Thus, "suspension" from that class.

Now that I can see. He was kicked out of the class for being a complete asshole. Religious people are so used to people being so careful about never offending them that even a discussion on why something is offensive can set them off. His religious faith must be really fragile.

BolloxReader:It's called a lesson in empathy. Be told to do something that violates your values.

Now you understand what it's like when you are told to violate others.

It is a university. That means your religious values are to be put on a shelf when you enter the classroom so you can learn things that go beyond what you feel comfortable with. Classes are meant to push you beyond your comfort zone. If that doesn't happen, you do not grow. This isn't elementary school where you are coddled and parents make sure everyone "feels good." If you hold strong religious convictions, social sciences are often going to be a hostile environment because most religious beliefs are built around "What I believe is utter truth and what you believe is hogwash" even though more progressive groups don't get in your face about it. Social sciences are about removing that part from yourself, which the highly religious simply find offensive.

Anyone who describes themselves as "devout" anything should try to avoid most social sciences classes.

Professor could have really gone for the gusto and had the N-Word written in huge letters on the blackboard when kids came in. That'd teach them a lesson about the power of symbols while getting them out of their comfort zone alright.Oh wait, you think that would be a poor idea? Yeah, me too.

Gabrielmot:FloydA: "Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can't step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."

Sounds like the students were not "forced" to step on the paper at all. The point of the exercise was to get the students to think about why they didn't want to step on the paper. Sounds like a potentially interesting exercise, but conducted in a ham-handed way.

So, they were not "forced"? Which is interesting really... It almost reminds me of an issue called "prayer in school". Where no one was required to pray, but a group of individuals got so butt hurt they decided that it was *too much* for others to be allowed that freedom, and they should silence themselves when praying to a God they didn't believe in.

I wonder what group that was?

I wonder how up in arms you'd be if the requirement was to write "atheist" and stomp on that paper?

ginandbacon had it right. Whether or not you agree with someone's religious beliefs (or lack there of), you should respect them (as long as they aren't directly harming anyone).

As a Baptist, I'd say the atheists who don't get this, and rant and rave over prayer in school and talk about the "man on a stick" and who on a daily basis mock Christians are equivalent to the Westboro Baptist Church morons.

Atheists like that make reasonable people like ginandbacon look bad. There are smart, thoughtful and intelligent atheists which while I disagree with, I can respect and hold a reasonable argument with. The majority in this thread are in my mind equivalent to the Westboro Baptist Church idiots.

johnperkins:ginandbacon: I think I could see how being asked to write the name of your divine spirit on a piece of paper and then being required to step on it might be offensive. I'm not sure who designed this particular exercise, but it kind of sucks ass. There are much better ways IMHO to teach how hypocritical and ridiculous many religious teachings are without doing dishonor to the essential message behind them which is essentially love and tolerance. Jesus was a great man in many respects and even as an atheist, I'm not sure I would want to write out his name and then stomp on it.

It might have been more interesting if the professor gave a presentation about a made-up* religion and asked everyone to write the name of the made-up prophet on the paper, then step on it.

* 'made up' as in the professor made it up for the lesson, not an existing religion someone could argue was made up.

That doesn't work. That's like playing poker with monopoly money. You need to have the real thing or you don't feel and act the same. Like imagining looking over a cliff and actually looking over one. Big difference.

Gabrielmot:FloydA: "Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can't step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."

Sounds like the students were not "forced" to step on the paper at all. The point of the exercise was to get the students to think about why they didn't want to step on the paper. Sounds like a potentially interesting exercise, but conducted in a ham-handed way.

So, they were not "forced"? Which is interesting really... It almost reminds me of an issue called "prayer in school". Where no one was required to pray, but a group of individuals got so butt hurt they decided that it was *too much* for others to be allowed that freedom, and they should silence themselves when praying to a God they didn't believe in.

I wonder what group that was?

I wonder how up in arms you'd be if the requirement was to write "atheist" and stomp on that paper?

ginandbacon had it right. Whether or not you agree with someone's religious beliefs (or lack there of), you should respect them (as long as they aren't directly harming anyone).

As a Baptist, I'd say the atheists who don't get this, and rant and rave over prayer in school and talk about the "man on a stick" and who on a daily basis mock Christians are equivalent to the Westboro Baptist Church morons.

Atheists like that make reasonable people like ginandbacon look bad. There are smart, thoughtful and intelligent atheists which while I disagree with, I can respect and hold a reasonable argument with. The majority in this thread are in my mind equivalent to the Westboro Baptist Church idiots.

-Not worthy of attention.

Thank you. I was actually surprisingly moved by that. I hope always to have respect for faith and to defend my brothers and sisters of any faith when I think they are being singled out for ridicule.

Russ1642:The exercise seems fine to me. Stomp or don't stomp it's just a prop to get the discussion going. Now the university contradicts the student's claim that he was suspended. I'm thinking that Jesus boy was lying about that one. Universities don't suspend students for piddly little things like not participating or making a valid complaint.

1) As I've pointed out upthread, many of the criticisms of the lesson are bullsh*t. Nobody was forced to do anything. In fact, the excerpted portion of the lesson specifically contemplates that students will refuse to step on the paper. The discussion is about why.

2) That being said, it's not clear to me the lesson is "fine." The idea of it isn't bad in principle; i.e., demonstrating expression of cultural values through actions or inaction. What troubles me, though, is that inevitably some students will choose to step on the paper, an act which is reasonably perceived as disrespectful to Christian beliefs. While there are appropriate venues for that kind of expression, one of those venues is not a university classroom at the instigation of the professor.

3) The student, the author, or the editor almost certainly lied about the student being suspended for reporting the incident.

I have no problem with what the professor asked the students to do. But then again, I am of the belief that ~95% of the worlds problems would go away if religion ceased to exist tomorrow. People need to have their beliefs questioned and insulted - otherwise how will they ever open their minds to new ways of thinking.

The school can't go into details because of student privacy, but stated that nobody was punished for not participating in this assignment. I'll bet this little jackass complained, and when the administration blew him off or tried to explain the context of the exercise, he threw a little tantrum and THAT is what he was suspended for.

If critical thinking is difficult for you, college may not be the right choice. Try a technical school or go be a carpenter like Jesus.

FloydA:rkiller1: eraser8: Is there a reason our society treats religious ideas so much more gingerly than other kinds of ideas?This isn't a troll. I'm seriously asking.

Not really. It's a cause de jure, as are LGBT rights, abortion, gun control, racism and Washington politics. Wait a few weeks and other de jure issue will cycle through MSNBC. Wait a few years and we'll be right back here. You know, circle of life and all./Whatever sells, sells.

Note: "De Jure" is a Latin term that means "concerning the law." "Du Jour" is a French phrase means "of the day" or "made for a particular time."

skullkrusher:Weaver95: skullkrusher: the lesson was ill-advised. Could have achieved the same lesson with having each student write his or her mother's name and discuss why they were hesitant to stomp on a paper with words on it to explore the importance of symbols.

I disagree - his mother isn't a cultural icon. this class was about the importance of symbols in a given culture.

unless you're reading a different article, the "cultural icon" bit isn't anywhere to be seen.The importance of symbols. A name is a symbol. That's why they used one people would be hesitant to step on.

FloydA:Happy Hours: FloydA: Happy Hours: The university did not explain why students were only instructed to write the name of Jesus - and not the name of Mohammed or another religious figure.

Oh, that's easy. They would be the target of terrorist attacks and called "racist" if they had told the students to write Mohammed.

Also, "Mohammed" is harder to spell than Jesus and most of the student would probably have been unable to do so.

Muslim students would hesitate before stepping on the name of Jesus, because they consider him one of the great prophets. Many American Christian students would not hesitate to step on the name of Mohammed, so they would not have learned the lesson that the exercise was intended to teach.

Which was what exactly?

The article fails to mention that and in the interest of getting a more objective view I've read a CBS article about this which also failed to explain what lesson it was trying to teach.

What was the lesson?

Is it that students will stomp on the name of a religious figure they believe in if an authority figure tells them to?

Is it that Jesus represents a religion that has had many things done in its name that were unjust?

Is it something completely different?

Do you even know what lesson was trying to be taught?

The article made it pretty obvious:

"Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can't step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."The bold text here indicates the lesson that the students were supposed to learn. The lesson was that people will hesitate before doing something that might seem disrespectful to the name of Jesus. Then the follow up, after they don't step on the paper, is the important part of the lesson - the students are then asked to think about why they don't want to ...

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier:So any student that doesn't want to stomp on the paper is asked to think about why - an exercise that leads to more introspection and a collegiate level of discussion of important symbols in a culture. Hell, push the envelope if that's the case. Put a cross, a star of david, an crescent moon, a yinyang, a swastika (the peace kind AND the Nazi kind), and an American flag on different pieces of paper and ask the students to stomp on and rip up whichever ones they think are appropriate.

Nowhere in the derpfest article is there any mention of tying one's grade to stomping on the paper (ie "If you don't do this, you will fail the class"), which WOULD be a violation of religious expression.

But what do I know, I'm a liberal and enjoy context.

These.

Somewhat off topic, somewhat related:

Years ago I took a cultural anthropology course which ended up being one of the neatest courses I ever ended up taking. Due to the fact that so many people would get wound up about it, the professor made a note in the syllabus and stated the first day that she would refer to all religions as mythologies, don't be offended.

There were a few Christian students who did end up taking offense throughout the semester and tried to argue the validity of Christianity over what some Siberian/jungle/etc. tribe believed, and a few dropped the class.

I wonder how many drop, then pull out the persecution complex and complain, as the guy in the article seems to be doing.

Happy Hours:After the class, Rotela said, he expressed his concerns to Poole and said he would tell Poole's supervisor and the media about the incident. He said Poole told him to leave the classroom.

So after class let out, the professor kicked him out of the room?Anyone care to bet whether the kid was standing there throwing a shiatfit and the professor just asked him to step outside so he could lock up and go home already?

FloydA:Igor Jakovsky: If the professor had stones he would have had the students draw Mohammed after the stomp on Jesus exercise.

So you didn't understand the point of the exercise either?

The point of the exercise was to evoke a discussion about culture and symbolism. A picture of Mohammed certainly fits. How does this exercise work with non-christians though? the professor should have had the students write any word that held meaning to them and step on that.

Weaver95:skullkrusher: Weaver95: skullkrusher: the lesson was ill-advised. Could have achieved the same lesson with having each student write his or her mother's name and discuss why they were hesitant to stomp on a paper with words on it to explore the importance of symbols.

I disagree - his mother isn't a cultural icon. this class was about the importance of symbols in a given culture.

unless you're reading a different article, the "cultural icon" bit isn't anywhere to be seen.The importance of symbols. A name is a symbol. That's why they used one people would be hesitant to step on.

*sigh*

if that's what you want to believe then have at it.

yeah, I'll go with what's in the article and not something you made up.